Levithian

Anyone thinking foxwell road is anything other than a complete clusterf*ck during peak periods of the day has never tried to travel in any direction to or from it.

They are running a hundred laps (or more) a day in testing before anyone even sets foot inside a car. It's pretty much the most intensive run time a ride ever experiences because you don't have the cycling down time experienced by guests getting off/on. You are punishing the ride with the shortest dispatches for hours on end, for days on end, it's like a giant torture test. THEN you switch to live testing with guests in it. The problems usually happen when the test period is cut short because you're either behind schedule trying to make up time or operations put pressure on you to get it open as soon as possible. It's not an issue of safety so it's ok to physically open, but nothing looks worse for maintenance teams when a ride breaks down, sometimes hours after it was reopened. Sadly, often people making decisions much higher up don't seem to place must stock in the public image your park projects to members of the public. So rather than drill it until you're sure the major kinks and bugs are worked out, it's often experiencing situations that make everyone look like amateurs and leave members of the public questioning if it's actually safe and do their maintenance teams know what they are doing.

And I simply stated the facts as to why it took so long and happened like it did. At no point did I say you can't split the train or it was impossible. I said there was no procedure in place to do it, they had nothing to attach the car segments to and even when it was considered it was decided it was more disruptive to do so. Pro tip. Nothing. And I mean NOTHING is attempted unless there is a procedure to follow. You know who dictated the whole process? Mack. Know who had no procedure in place for removing a train? Good guess. One big problem with your whole scenario. The train isn't secured suspended from lifting equipment. It has to be clamped and anchored. It's also incredibly difficult to remove a pin or axle from a loaded component. You've got the whole train suspended perfectly in the air, you are overestimating the level of control you have. A regular evac from GL (and every other coaster really) sees track clamps fitted around multiple axles to prevent the train from moving, then its also tied off with a puller/come along as a secondary measure. Bit different doing what you have to do to get people in danger off a train vs putting employees in harm's way trying to split the train. Quite simply, it was deemed risky. You can't sit the train on any of the running gear, place it back in the maintenance bay and return it to service. You have to completely remove the wheel carrier to remove it from the track, so that just leaves the spindles sticking out to bottom. Everything you remove, all the stuff you are suggesting to just sit it on now has to be rebuilt and reassembled. You can unbolt the wheel assemblies relatively easy and pull the axle pins out, but the spindles are not coming out in the field. They take a considerable amount of force to drive the king pin out. I'm not even sure if they would be ok reusing the main spindles if you were to sit the train on top of them as it's not something that is ever done, so best case expect weeks of rebuild time, maybe more if they don't have replacement bearings and fasteners in stock to reassemble wheel carriers, or months because they don't keep a whole trains worth of spindles just sitting there on the shelf. They are usually removed, sent for crack inspection and returned to service. You could maybe get it off the track quicker, but then what? Sit out of service for longer, incur greater costs in actually reassembling the train? Again, it stalling was not an issue with the train or any sort of mechanical failure, so it was in a state that could return it to service if you didn't pull it apart. Anyway. I'm not going to argue any further. I was trying to explain the realities of the situation faced, not how you would do it better now without any of the external factors they had to consider at the time.

You'd have to build/make something to fit to the track and mount to the chassis. Don't forget it didn't valley in a flat piece of track, it ended up at the bottom of a curve which makes things even more difficult to remove as the train moves. Also have to remember they were trying to come up with solutions that resulted in the least amount of down time possible. It was cheaper, and ultimately decided to be less disruption to pull the train over rather than dismantle it given the reason for it stalling in the first place had absolutely nothing to do with the train and could be put back into service more or less immediately after passing usual inspections.

Yeah, no doubt they do. At the time they didn't though is what I was meaning and nobody was quite sure how to remove it. Thats the primary reason it took so long. There was literally no procedure in place and nobody is going to take any responsibility for damaging something unknown. You can't just unbolt one car from the other and sit it on the track. Even if you don't care about the train, what about the track itself? It's not bullshit at all, it's literally what happened. Now. I know exactly how it works, why do you think I posted? I also know that the entrance way for rivals originally wasn't wide enough to take the assembled trains out the front of the maintenance bay and everything had to be loaded/assembled from the rear.

The biggest problem with rivals was at the time they literally had nothing to attach a removed train to. When it enters the repair bay it's designed to run on a set of smaller wheels on the outer of the chassis so the wheel carriers can hang freely for service and repair work while in the maintenance bay. There was no procedure how to go about removing a stranded train from the ride, which is a problem because modern coasters frequently don't have two sets of running wheels so you can't just uncouple one car at a time as the one left on the track has nothing to attach to keep the car stable. They are built more like a chassis with only one set of carriers either front or back, with a coupling that bolts to the next car. Pretty much every other coaster has a dolly or frame they roll each car onto as they are often shipped already assembled in containers. Rivals was a bit different. It does. Frequently. Especially from a maintenance standpoint. Not just daily inspections, but weekly, monthly, quarterly checks, repairs, maintenance, routinely done by maintenance teams at night because there aren't enough hours in the morning before opening to get these done, plus opening checks. The other side of it is you have maybe 10-12 hours to form a contingency plan if something is really wrong and you have to work through the night. Don't have that luxury during the day time, so a lot of difficult routine work is done at night. They would probably even get painted in darkness if 1) the weather suits, and 2) painters or the painting company they farm the job out to are prepared to work at night time.

@DaptoFunlandGuy You glossed over it way, WAY, WAY too simply by saying disclaimers cover all though. They simply don't. As far as discrimination goes, they also have a duty of care to identify that you are greater risk of injury or further injury if you were to ride, especially in the case where it goes against the manufacturer's rules or regulation for their ride. They are not required to make expect medical decisions based on what they can visualise or what (lies) told to them, and likewise, they cannot allow you to place yourself in a dangerous position even if you feel it is discriminating. You can twist it to mean anything you want, and it frequently is, but the intention of the act does not overwrite the potential to do harm. So it becomes a case of do what is reasonable and argue the fine points in court. The groundwork for what people can ride comes direct from manufacturers, then external risk assessments are done in relation with SOP's and that draws a very clear line in the sand before it's even handed over to operations to manage. What is and isn't an acceptable risk is ENTIRELY down to how much responsibility you wish to take in addition to these controls. Pro tip, it's usually very little. You are significantly increasing your exposure, and, even in the event that you did everything right, or you felt you did everything appropriately, you can still be sued for injuries. Post early 2000's public liability insurance crisis, there isn't a company in the country that won't ALWAYS err on the side of caution, even if that means becoming more risk aversive and excluding more people. Then, when you throw in it's a potentially dangerous, risk filled environment combined with the operational style of village, clearly evident/demonstrated through years of people questioning why/how they do things (when nobody else seems to), you get what you get. The problem is the world has changed, and stupid people's expectations are completely screwed. Nobody owes you anything. You pay money to enter their world, they tell you what you can and can't do, end of discussion. Unfortunately, it's flipped, and the opposite is true in the minds of a lot of people these days. It's like businesses should bend to the will or the demands of their customer/guests just because they promise to offer a token (paltry) gesture of good will that is so meager in comparison it wouldn't even cover the initial filing fee of application to sue for injury or damages. The more stupid the general public becomes, the more generalised restrictions and controls will be found because it's evident people cannot be held accountable for their own actions anymore, so you have to try to limit your exposure instead.

Each one of those "bulbs" are a 3 in 1 SMD. Both displays are custom Vuepix LED screens developed for ULA. The joker head is a custom GM series LED screen. It's still made up of a bunch of modules that connect together, but it was designed with greater LED pitch as it's purely signage, there's no infill panel it's completely open. Obviously more a bespoke design/shape, but they had a lot of problems with the GL panels over the years too, including water damage. Even if you don't lose a panel, you can lose a signal or power module that will take out an entire group and you're just left with a big portion of your sign missing. Wanted to get away from these sorts of issues. Not sure if cost comes into it a lot when you are building a custom 130sqm sign. Thats coverage about half the size of an average house. When you think of it that way, it starts to really drive home how large the sign is.

Trouble is, the ride at your own risk thing doesn't really work anymore. Why? 1) Because it doesn't stop people attempting to drag you through courts, which ultimately costs money even if they lose or drop the lawsuit. 2) It all impacts your insurance premiums. Underwriters are increasingly setting the tone for what they will consider acceptable and what they won't. The more claims you have to make, the more notice they take, premiums increase, greater restrictions are applied. 3) In Australia, disclaimers are basically not worth the paper they are written on. Basically, from a legal standpoint, you cannot knowingly allow or permit something you know could have a detrimental or have a negative impact, either physically, mentally or monetarily.How they are served makes one hell of a difference too, especially when things like tickets for entry are concerned. When you are sued the courts look at if you were actively notifying the persons of the disclaimers, when and where, and if you were just relying on a printed document or statement somewhere. It's not good enough to just basically sit back and rely on the document anymore. You can write all kinds of things in disclaimers and even have people sign them, but there are so many laws and acts that basically override them. And that's without the whole issue of negligence being able to be established which makes you culpable regardless of what is written. Village used to go one further and send some guests to first aid where the RN/EN could actually look at the type of injury and make a more educated judgement than guest services staff. I'd hate to think they stopped doing this because, aside from being a legal minefield for the parks, nothing ruins an entire family's day at a theme park like arriving and being told one of your kids is a complete bystander for the day. If that's going to happen, you'd at least like someone with some sort of medical training to be making judgement calls that will completely ruin your day.

They do and have had in the past. They have always managed to achieve a LOT with basically ZERO budget. It's downright sad how little money is available for the AV department. The problem is ALWAYS money. Both in terms of getting the funding to actually pay for all the cool stuff originally planned in the design of the attractions, AND getting the budget to maintain it with staff and replacement equipment it actually requires to keep running. The last one in particular has always been a big problem. The attitude from MUCH higher ups always seemed to be installations with complete disregard for manufacturer operating conditions/environment and forget about it. High temps? humidity? dust? nah, never heard of that. Never have to spend another cent on anything, nothing will ever fail. It's not like these media rich environments need dedicated staff to keep them maintained each day. It's fine for someone to do a pass through and ignore all the stuff that's not working because there is never any budget put aside to replace.

At best, they probably could have placed an ugly looking door across the entry way instead. They can't really build out the doorways themselves as they need to keep access to scooby. A great idea might be to install a staff change room and toilets behind the fenced area. Theres another one of these cavities on the opposite side than runs the length of the superman building in the old Chinatown alleyway too. Not as wide, partially filled with decommissioned air conditioning stuff.

They need to shut the area because there is basically ZERO services ducting in the whole area. It's a giant mess of installed and dug up and reinstalled conduit that serves basically very little. You can't make proper use of the available area with the landscape as it is, it needs a complete layout change AND the addition of services pits. So it will take a considerable amount of time to even work through the mess and change the terrain (there's quite a change in height across the whole area). Virtually the whole park is built like this to be honest. Lots of GPR work to scope the site area each time they start a new development because it's a mismatch of pipes and cabling running all over the place and the site drawings were seriously outdated (which they found out the hard way, multiple times). Some better photos on the manufacturers website. Gallery . Mini Cars & Go-Kart Manufacturers.

Absolute ridiculous to remove JDS. People who even contemplate this demonstrate they have no kids between 3 and about 8, or have paid zero attention to how busy this is during the holiday season. The reason for having JDS and speedy taxis was because speedy taxis never used to have a minimum height restriction. If your kid could co-ordinate feet standing on a button and being able to turn a steering wheel, they could go on the attraction. If they had real money to spend, you really need to shut the area for maybe 18 months and give serious consideration for enclosing the whole area. Either, actually indoors or another canopy setup in similar guise to main street. In a country with some of the harshest sun/uv on the planet, the place is a concrete canyon.

Some rides had their class rating changed/updated with the new industry guidelines that came through, so things like ride exclusion areas changed. Takes a bit of time to filter through with updates to ride registration as everyone given a hard deadline well (see, years) in advance to make sure they comply with new regulations. Virtually nothing is preventative, only reactionary. So either a forced change like above, a change to the Australian standard or it was picked up during an Audit (either Government or 3rd party) and required change of design. Lots of things may seem like a pointless proposition, but it's entirely based on either a recommendation following an Audit or when requiring replacement (this fencing was terrible for kids standing on the bottom rail, hanging on to the poles and snapping the welds) the safety team found out what the current standards are and the replacement complied. In terms of fencing and railing, they literally control not only height, but spacing between rails, gaps between infill, if anyone can get a foot hold, building types, what it's connected to, obstructions/inclusions in different zones, which side of the fence these exclusion zones are. There are far more regulations around specific distances and openings than you might think. You can literally be audited and given a notice because the spacing between railings is 12cm and the new standard is now 10cm because the old maximum opening distance was deemed not restrictive enough to prevent a person (mainly a child) climbing through and you have to go around and change everything to comply because your existing stuff isn't good enough anymore. It's a lot of work for parks to keep on top of, even with teams of safety managers. It's the primary reason for yearly auditing so you can stay on top of relevant standards and be given a chance to respond with modifications before the government starts handing out fines or (hopefully) before someone is injured or killed and your shortcomings are made public. Sometimes the answer to the question of why? is literally because nobody noticed it before.

The reality is it would likely be an open a Zamperla, Preston and Barbieri or possibly Fabbri catalogue and pick 3 or 4 replacements kind of deal.

Dont forget brake upgrades plus a control system upgrade too. Thats a big one that takes hundreds of hours of testing.

To be clear, it wasn't machinery the kid was actually stuck in, it makes it seem like he was caught in some big machine. He stuck his head through the ceiling rose and when the pole moved it pinned his head against the fibreglass opening on the ceiling. He wasn't just standing up on a character when riding, but literally climbing up the character and standing on the seat itself, sticking your head up against the pole. It's not a fast moving ride in the slightest, normally you would expect someone would see the roof coming close to them and duck down, not stick your head through the opening. There is absolutely no way to enclose the hole the poles come through, you have forward/backward motion of the crankshaft, plus some lateral movement due to alignments that have to be allowed for it to function. As said, they normally install this nylon brush stuff as a deterrent, but it's not something that actually stops you from sticking a hand (or other body part) through the ceiling.

I needed to clarify something, but I was too late with the edit. What he commented on about the failure is not quite the meaning you seem to have taken. See the term "bolted joint"? it's actually the mechanical joint itself they are talking about, how it's designed. They also didn't under design the bolt like it sounds, he is talking about its use. Fasteners are produced with tensile and strength ratings you use in the calculating the compression forces of the mechanical joint you are designing to find out if they can provide enough clamping force to prevent failure and separation of the joint. You basically receive the information from the fastener manufacturer and calculate if your intended size fits your purpose through stress and FEA calculations. If not, you go bigger, a different grade or introduce more of them. There is so much more to it than just selecting a bolt that is tough or strong enough, because, basically, even if it was such a simple overlook there is a safety factor built into every component like this, typically 3:1 or even as high as 5:1 when human lives are at risk, so the fastener should never have even approached it's tensile failure point if their engineering calculations of the joint itself were right and it failed because the bolt failed under tension and came apart. It's actually an insight into how the failure happened without even meaning to be. A more appropriate sounding phrase might be to say the wrong fasteners were used, but you can't say that in a professional capacity like this because it implies someone used the wrong components and deviated from the design, which could have wrongly suggested the park was at fault. Regardless of all of it. People were very, very lucky and it could have easily resulted in either serious permanent injury or death. It might have even been a completely different industry 18 months later when the dreamworld accident happened if it had of resulted in a death and the whole industry was audited nationwide like what followed after the dreamworld deaths and findings during the inquest. The gross negligence found (but not prosecuted) at dreamworld would likely have been discovered under the heavy scrutiny of government regulators and the overhaul and changes to operating regulations of the amusement industry might have come earlier.

Go ahead and provide a report that details the worksafe investigation, the failure and the "redesign" that followed. I'll wait. Just for a moment, think about why or how some people seem to know more technical information than is ever usually talked about, especially when it contains specific details or terms even a lot of coaster fans don't know and seem oddly specific to one ride/type. Months after? funny that the investigation hadn't even been completed, it had just been moved behind closed doors. Do you know where the car was located? it just made it around the corner before c block brakes. There are plenty of supporting photos that show a wheel carrier in the grass directly next to the queue line. To make it to the grass it actually had to fall off the car and clear the queue line and station because underneath it is the maintenance bay with a load of concrete and gravel. The only place grass is found is the creek side of the queue line. But wait, the experts said this never happened and nobody was in danger? Seen this footage before? Can you see what is located in the grass at 20 seconds in? pay close attention to the shape of the walkway (the queue line) above and think about where guests are standing as the approach one of the unloader consoles. Second thing to pay close attention to is the front chassis, its location (angle) and can you see any wheel carriers on the inside? Just to note, Movie world never actually commented on the two bolts theory because its not the truth. That rumour apparently came from what rescuers told guests, but its not based on the components that came apart, because, evidently, stuff broken and fallen off suffered complete failure, it is actually something else. The park went with the statement that there are multiple contact points with the track, even though the images and footage clearly shows the car has completely derailed and the rear chassis is suspended in the air, resting against the front chassis. The joint didn't break, it came apart. It wasn't a bolt at all. It was actually multiple bolts of a stressed mounting block that failed. MULTIPLE. For a bit of reference, the attached image is the joint being talked about, each carrier utilises one at the bottom for upstops and one at the top for road wheels. The mounting block had no dowel or pins to locate it and movement was found between the mounting surfaces due to a design failure of the stressed joint, not a bolt. In short, it didn't have the required amount of clamping force to hold it together. The movement is a shear force and bolts under tension don't deal with shear forces very well and fracture or shear off. The entire purpose of the 4 mounting bolts is to compress the joint together, generating enough clamping force that will hold it in place and stop movement due to friction. Think the same way a wheel on a car is held in place. The movement in the joint itself caused failure of the fasteners and the joint came undone. It didn't break, it didnt snap and it wasn't a bolt that was the problem. Failed fasteners were a result and a visual warning something wasn't right. The problem was s&s didn't adequately analyse and stress test this component when they upsized the capacity of the cars for the 4 person layout. The joint failed because of the stress forces encountered allowed movement which lead to the failure of the bolted joint. The outcome was to machine out the mount and carrier frame to fit larger fasteners, fit an additional one to the middle, generating higher clamping force and ensuring it was capable of withstanding the additional stress of the wider cars with added riders without moving, so it would stop fracturing bolts in service. It always had multiple bolts in place, the notion that a bolt was upgraded because it was the cause of the failure just isn't true. Take it or leave it, I don't really care if you don't believe me. Look at the evidence, even speak to people who know these rides and see what they have to say. Or don't.

Im not disagreeing with issues with operations. Im talking about the fact if you travel to other major parks around the world you will find similar 2-3hr waits for major attractions at many parks too. The video made it seem like 2-3hr waits were only encountered at movieworld, when the reality is quite the opposite. We've also been over this multiple times before, the simple fact is village roadshow utilise additional safety measures, including operational procedures in the operation of their rides that contribute (not the only reason) to the slow load/unload times. Thats what I was having issue with. From what you are saying I can tell you don't know what actually failed, or the chain of multiple other failures that occurred afterwards. There weren't multiple bolts keeping people safe, there wasn't any safety feature or component holding it on track. The initial failure was caused by failure of multiple fasteners on a single stressed mounting block that attached the lower section of one of the wheel carriers to the main spindle on the front chassis. When people talk about "the failure" this is "the failure" people talk about (usually this is because they didn't know anything else happened), this is where the "design flaw" existed, this is what allowed a complete set of wheels to separate from the spindle and entirely fall away from one of the cars. In reality, it was only the source of the initial failure that caused the accident, but it was not the only one that happened during the event. Multiple additional failures resulted in damage to multiple wheel carriers allowing the whole car to move off the rails in the process of it grinding to a halt. Multiple sets of wheels came off both chassis and allowed the car to move on the track, with the rear chassis actually hitting the track with such force it leveraged the whole chassis up and tilted away from the track coming to rest against the front chassis completely in the air. You could see the whole underside of the chassis. Guide and upstop wheels are the only thing tracking the car and essentially holding it on track. The design of S&S cars places the wheel carriers outside the track rails with nothing inside, so if you lose one wheel carrier, if the chassis moves away from the missing side, the other remaining carrier slides off the track and the car is no longer attached as there is no sacrificial point of contact like a pin or spindle that can ride along inside the rail to hold it in place in the event of catastrophic failure like what is found on a lot of coasters. The front and rear chassis are tethered together through what are basically very large pillow ball joints allowing the front and rear chassis of the car to flex during operation as it passes through things like inversions. Neither the front or rear chassis (row of seats) that make up the car were still attached to the track and had to be mechanically anchored (ratchet straps) to the track and supports to stabilise the car before rescue as it was at risk of slipping and falling. It was only the friction of the front chassis that was stopping things from moving. So, yes, it was more than enough to cause a complete derailment because one actually happened, and in addition, hundreds of kg of steel fell from a large height that could have very, very easily fallen into the occupied queue line or onto the track at unload/entrance to unload. It was a miracle nobody was seriously injured or killed. The difference in reports between the dreamworld accident and the green lantern one is simply the coroner. In the event of a death, the office/court of the coroner investigates the deaths and the mechanisms of failure and any contributing factors that lead up to the accident. This includes everything, business operation, management, culture, work histories, not just the event or the ride itself. Frequently, if accidents are too gruesome and/or determined not to be in the public interest, the reports are often withheld. By comparison, investigations by worksafe are not released, with only compliance notices or prosecutions being made public. The coroner basically decided that even though the accident contained details of some horrific injuries, the failures were so systemic and such wide spanning, that it was in the publics best interest that the report be released. FYI. Even without any operator pushing any buttons, until a car passes through the current brake block zone, the car behind it cannot enter. So even if the operators did not respond fast enough, the stranded car still occupying a block would have caused a backup and the car behind it would have been held by the friction brakes at the previous brake block. It had nothing at all to do with the damaged car though. That is a fundamental difference between both rides. One operated entirely without a block systems, with only conveyor operation being controlled when fully loaded allowing rafts to bank up at the bottom of the conveyor, while the other is a roller coaster with a fully operating block system that monitors car position on the track at all times.

They had pretty much all of this and drove the staff actually delivering on these ideals away over the last decade. Few people, unless working within a corporate environment and exposed to the decision making process understand just how much EVERY management decision is influenced by financial considerations. EVERYTHING you do, especially in this climate, comes back to cost. Want better scenery? want more immersive interactive elements? sure. You double the cost of the ride being developed. You also increase the maintenance budget to keep it running. Want an example of what happens when you put money into elements but don't step up the operational budget to keep things running? Look at pretty much every single ride or attraction at village roadshow over the last 20 years. I cannot think of any ride addition over the last 15 years that didn't have its budget amended prior to the build process being completed. Everything that was costed and agreed upon when approval to start the build ends up being reviewed and costs were reduced, usually at the expense of things they can control. Theming, visuals, operational stuff. Basically things they know will have an impact on guest satisfaction but don't rate the result high enough vs the cost savings. It's probably the single biggest reason why a wall doesn't exist, ruining any immersion left. Not because someone didn't raise it, or because it wasn't factored into it during the design or build process, but because someone likely said no. It's ok to see through to back of house or into nearby buildings. Same goes for shade and water. Someone, somewhere has decided it isn't cost effective, and it hasn't been implemented. I can imagine the pivot to this would have been to maximise retail options for people to purchase drinks instead. This is what drives the talented people away more than just wages. A lack of growth, a lack of improvements and basically just reducing everything to a budgetary consideration, results in those people leaving because their job satisfaction has taken a massive hit. Essentially, people just give up on the ideal of the business. Problem is, since covid, village parks have been having problems getting ANY staff, leading to major shortages across pretty much all departments. You can't get rid of people you consider underperformers if you trouble attracting anyone. I can tell you with 100% accuracy, that following the reopening period after COVID, a number of ride closures experienced had absolutely nothing to do with maintenance issues and everything to do with not having enough trained, experienced staff to open attractions. I would not be at all surprised if this is still going on today, operational decisions to reduce ride capacity based on cost reduction or staffing levels, not purely because of maintenance issues.

People blaming the takeover as the catalyst for change in management styles and the focus of the business really need to look closer at what was going on behind the scenes between John and Robert Kirby, and John Kirby and Graeme Burke too. It started long before talks of potential buy outs, before the sale of assets and the change in management. The accident at Dreamworld and the huge dive experienced by Ardent was just the final straw.

He was pushed out because some of those people were promoted AHEAD of him, not in his place after he left. Heh. What safety features do you think stopped the car? I'll give you a hint, it hit the cross ties in multiple places and ground along the track rails until it stopped. People complaining about shifts based on original opening attractions have absolutely no idea what was happening behind the scenes. Rides like LTRR were closed because 1) the attendance had dropped to levels questioning its viability 2) it was exceedingly expensive, and even quite complicated and border line unsafe to maintain. Think, lots of mechanical components, very, VERY poor access. These two major issues run true for just about every attraction closed by village. There comes a point where if it was to even continue operation it would need to be completely overhauled. Sometimes the requirements to bring it forward to current standards aren't even possible. Youd have to destroy the ride to do it and it's just not worth it financially. They literally crunch the numbers and look at the boost in attendance new attractions bring. There is absolutely an expectation from the public that new rides are frequently developed. Every time you get complaints on social media its almost an even split between those complaining about the good old days and demanding they bring back old rides they loved the last time they visited 15 years ago; and those complaining they still have the same old rides and they should build something new (frequently heard even when they literally are building new rides). Everyone going on and on and ON about the lack of anything relating to studios/movie magic, etc, just have to face the reality it is never going to happen again. There is NO relationship with the studios next door, they are separate entities, they are booked out by production companies who manage their own site presence and demand control over site access. Members of the public even existing within a working production facility is a risk. Not just to the privacy and all the shit you have to put up with when members of the public try to break onto set and take photos of back of house stuff, but it's a huge safety risk too. I jumped ahead to recommendations and this dude has cherry picked every, single suggestion raised by people on this site previously. Problem is, over half of his demands are already done or have been done by current management and none of it improves the employee experience. You know what will see the biggest boost in morale and quickly reduce apathy? Start paying them properly. They have used enterprise agreements to criminally underpay staff for exceedingly long periods of time. It's a big part of the reason why they have issues retaining experienced operations staff. Few now see it as a career choice, and lots move on once they finish their studies at uni or tafe, or go on to start families and never return once they have had kids. It's a job that often works for people based on the varied shifts on offer, especially weekend work. It's not somewhere filled with a lot of career progression, especially if you aren't part of the in crowd and all the little cliques that go on within different management teams. When he jumps forward to saying guests should be able to experience a minimum of 8 rides per day based on throughput, i switched off. Just couldn't listen to the ramblings anymore. For someone apparently so well traveled, he acts like he has never experienced the 2-3 hour waits for attractions are parks overseas. Where Australian parks let people down is in the queue line experience vs those same 2-3 hr waits overseas. There is nothing to keep them comfortable and ABSOLUTELY nothing interesting to try and keep people amused. Pretty much every suggestion surrounding the visual look, and especially things like merchandising and characters throughout the park is seemingly made with no understanding that even something like a person looking like a director walking around with a bullhorn can be a licenced image. All the seasonal theming, all the specific imagery used in events like fright nights and white christmas exist because of a large number of licencing and production agreements. You can't just build a water tower and stick a WB logo on it. Even without the WB logo, the water tower itself is likely iconic and has a trademark based on its image. Thats the level of detail you start to get into when some of the imagery experienced has been in use for decades. I have to pull him up though on suggesting staff are unsafe or your safety is at risk based on apparent attitudes though. Thats absolute BS and you should be ashamed for saying things like this, especially since you know the park are never going to respond publicly to bullshit like this. It's a pity people feel like they can say and do anything they want, because it would be great for the parks to fact check so many of the mistruths people spread on social media. It's all well and good to make demands costing hundreds of millions of dollars, but where does the operational budget come from? Every time parks even look at rising their entry fees or passes they are crucified by everyone. If they try to maximise attendance numbers during peak season or during events, they are crucified by people for allowing too many people within the park. You have to get the money from somewhere, and not enough people actually seem to understand this. The figures were publicly available in every end of year report while the company was still listed on the stock exchange. You could literally see where the budgets go, how much turnover the parks generate and how little actual profit this results in. Any suggestions to change in direction, change of operation and complete overhauls to attractions and facilities has to keep in mind the realities of what can actually be accomplished. Especially in very, very short periods of time.

Its not even full power. The launch system is capable of developing more horsepower than its limited to due to track design/length and speed restrictions.

Brake sections basically require a straight section of track to fit them and any drive motors in place. So, something like scooby is going to be limited by the number of straight sections of track available if there were upgrades to the number of cars available.